4 ms·
This covers one big point that a lot of 'workplace rule making' types never quite understand. Most policies designed to protect people from losing their jobs a
by brc 17y ago
This covers one big point that a lot of 'workplace rule making' types never quite understand. Most policies designed to protect people from losing their jobs actually increase either the chance they will lose their job, or their chance of getting another job. If there are penalties for firing an employee, with an associated 'trial period', then the employee stands a greater chance of getting fired before that period is up, even if there was a chance that any issues could have been worked out.
If an employer knows they may lose money from claims of unfair firing, then they will resist hiring employees until they have sufficient funds to cover the cost of losing someone.
Anecdote in point : a member of my family runs a business. A new hire didn't work out, and after counselling them several times, they decided the person had to go. They waited until after Christmas, fired the employee, who said that they understood the reasons. The former employee found representation, came back and successfully won compensation for an unfair dismissal. The reason was that some paperwork had not been completed correctly during the firing process. The resulting legal costs and compensation meant that the position will remain unfilled for several months until the balance sheet position is restored.
It's the same law of unintended consequences that means rent controlled apartments actually decrease housing affordability in cities (apart from the lucky few). Employment policies like this decrease employment (apart from the lucky few). In both cases the results are the direct opposite for what they are intended.
In terms of a social policy : governments should cover minimum wages, working conditions and other safety issues. Compensation for unfair dismissal should be capped regardless of salary and paid out of a central fund taken from company income taxes.
That might be tough but that is life.
- smanek 17y agoI have trouble believing your story (assuming it takes place in the states ...) - do you have any more details? It's (thankfully) really hard to win an unfair dismissal suit since we're all 'at will' employees by default. You can fire someone because you don't like their shoes, don't like that they smoke, or even no reason at all (the handful of exceptions are 'protected categories', like race/religion).
- jbellis 17y ago> we're all 'at will' employees by default IIANM this depends on your state in the USA.
- cschneid 17y agoBeing curious, I looked it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Specific_states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Specific_sta...
- smanek 17y agoRight you are. I've worked in 3 states, and they all work that way, so I mistakenly generalized. Some research suggests that it really varies state by state (even the states that are generally 'at will' each have different exceptions) - so caveat my statement as appropriate for your state.
- brc 17y agoNo, it is not in the USA. I can't post any more details because I doubt the particular business would appreciate it being discussed online. However, I can assure you that it is very much true, right down to the employee being fired after the christmas break. The workplace in question closes down for two weeks after Christmas and the employee was kept on full pay, and dismissed upon their return to work. This was because nobody wants to fire someone just before Christmas, when their chances of getting a new job are slim. In this country, you can't fire an employee for any reason other than non-performance of written job duties, and only after three written warnings, and a whole pile of other paperwork. It's easy to get this wrong, and then open yourself up to unfair dismissal actions. The union representatives actively look for these types of cases to prosecute.
- smanek 17y agoAh, fair enough. I (mistakenly) assumed it was in the US - it sounds much more reasonable if it took place elsewhere.
- aaronblohowiak 17y ago
- ytinas 17y agoYou're confusing a few issues here. Your story highlights a problem with the law system in the US. Plenty of countries with more worker friendly labor laws deal with these situations without forcing people to defend themselves in court.
- eru 17y ago> In terms of a social policy : governments should cover minimum wages, working conditions and other safety issues. Compensation for unfair dismissal should be capped regardless of salary and paid out of a central fund taken from company income taxes. I agree in general. But why have minimum wages? The same line of reasoning as the one against rent control applies here. (As an example, Germany does not have a minimum wage for most industries. It has lots of other `employee protection', that needs to be removed, though.)